Lest we forget...

[Hollie]

Oh, but you and your friend Bison never provide links. Why should I?

I think you're angry at being exposed as a fraud.

Why no link?

 

[montelatici]

But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.

Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie

 

[Hollie]

But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.

Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie

And as you know, it does not include the section you previously cut and pasted.

Fraud! But you know that.

 

[Coyote]

In addition, according to this article, the reason's that Deir Yassin was chosen was not for it's value as a military target but to make a point:

Yes, there are many, many articles which add a narrative to the story. That was my point, remember?

So, let's assume they are ALL true.

A particular military commander had a personal grudge against Deir Yassin. AND

It was a military target. AND

It was approved by Haganah. AND

It was an opportunity to showcase Irgun and Lehi with a high visibility target. AND

It was intended to frighten the Arab populace.

Do you disagree with any of that?

OK, I can agree with that bit.

...stating that has nothing to do with "Jews are evil" but with what was going on at the time with the different militias who each had a slightly different agenda and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause.

Yes. But see how far you've come down from the original post and the idea of mythologizing the event? I have absolutely NO problem with people saying that different people, and different groups of people, at various times had different agendas and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause (including, of course, targeting military objectives). That is a balanced viewpoint. That is just acknowledging the complexity of the situation.

The issue I have is with the modern day mythologizing of the event which appears, to me, to attach meaning to the event which was not inherent in the actual event, but only in the mythologizing of it. Such as labeling the event as a "massacre". The term has a specific meaning, which I do not feel was inherent in the actual events.

[/QUOTE]

Shusha, now I am confused. What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?

Do you dispute that:
a massacre occurred
elderly people, women and children were killed in cold blood and their corpses stuffed down wells and dumped in quarries and victims were paraded.

That seems pretty well supported by evidence.

What is not supported by evidence is the modern claims that it is all myth.

IT WAS a massacre - what else could you call it and what evidence do you have to indicate it was anything else? What rationale is there shooting unarmed civilians - especially children in their homes?

 

[Shusha]

I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.

Please. They sent a warning. They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat. 85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.

I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks. They clearly did. Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause. But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event. (Thus, a "massacre").

And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.

They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.

This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre. Why does it not suggest so to you?

 

[montelatici]

But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.

Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie

And as you know, it does not include the section you previously cut and pasted.

Fraud! But you know that.

It includes all of it.

 

[montelatici]

 

[Coyote]

I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.

Please. They sent a warning. They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat. 85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.

Please.

HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.

When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre? Add to that the fact that Irgun/Lehi wanted to make a statement that frightened the arabs.

I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks. They clearly did. Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause. But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event. (Thus, a "massacre").

Shusha - you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.

I do not reject the idea they intended to kill. They killed. THEY KILLED CHILDREN IN COLD BLOOD. They looked them in the eye and shot them.

I'm sorry but I can't see it any other way and I can't understand the excusing of it.

And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.

IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".

They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.

This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre. Why does it not suggest so to you?

Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.

 

[montelatici]

I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.

Please. They sent a warning. They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat. 85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.

I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks. They clearly did. Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause. But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event. (Thus, a "massacre").

And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.

They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.

This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre. Why does it not suggest so to you?

There were only 400 inhabitants and over 200 were killed by the European Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, now I am confused. What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?

Do you dispute that:
a massacre occurred

Yes, I DO dispute that a massacre occurred. A combat occurred that had a heavy loss of life, including innocent civilians. Some of whom were likely killed outside combat and legally and morally wrongly.

But I reject the idea that is was a "massacre" as that has connotations which are not inherent in the actual events. Just as I reject labeling the Protective Edge as a "genocide" against the "open air prison". The narrative MATTERS.

 

[Hollie]

But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.

Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie

And as you know, it does not include the section you previously cut and pasted.

Fraud! But you know that.

It includes all of it.

Fraud.

You know it does not which is why you put on your islamo-dancing shoes and are trying to slither away.

Fraud.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha, now I am confused. What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?

Do you dispute that:
a massacre occurred

Yes, I DO dispute that a massacre occurred. A combat occurred that had a heavy loss of life, including innocent civilians. Some of whom were likely killed outside combat and legally and morally wrongly.

But I reject the idea that is was a "massacre" as that has connotations which are not inherent in the actual events. Just as I reject labeling the Protective Edge as a "genocide" against the "open air prison". The narrative MATTERS.

I understand the idea of "collateral damage" - ie the unintended killling of civilians in combat.

Please explain how the deliberate entering of houses and gunning down of unarmed women and children counts as "combat".

 

[Hollie]

I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.

Please. They sent a warning. They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat. 85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.

I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks. They clearly did. Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause. But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event. (Thus, a "massacre").

And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.

They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.

This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre. Why does it not suggest so to you?

There were only 400 inhabitants and over 200 were killed by the European Jews.

There are varying reports of the number killed.

You just make up that nonsense as you go along.

 

[Shusha]

HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.

The attack was triggered early. And therefore not according to plan. The plan was to warn and then attack. What, are you saying that they set up the whole warning system, knowing that they wouldn't actually be using it? Please.

When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre?

Really? You expect combat in civilian areas to be clean and neat and tidy? "Hey, before you go shooting me, could you please remove your women and children? Could we just do a quick sweep of the house to ensure all the women and children have been removed?" War is not like that. Modern warfare in urban areas is especially not like that. What do you expect to happen in combat? Really, genuine question.

...you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.

Um. No. There is no context when just giving the numbers. The numbers alone do not measure a "massacre". First the accepted numbers -- TOTAL -- are 100ish. Heavy on the "ish". Clearly, not all of them were civilians as there was some significant resistance to the attack. At least some of these were combatants. (I'm not sure anyone has the numbers on how many were combatants. But if you have them -- show me.)

IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".

Well, actually those words have been said on this very board. Since I've been a member.

But "stuff it and get over it" is NOT what I said. There is a difference between pogroms/persecution and conflict.

Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.

I would agree with you if they just "walked" into houses and shot people. But they were being shot at as well. Hence, the "conflict" part.

 

[Coyote]

HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.

The attack was triggered early. And therefore not according to plan. The plan was to warn and then attack. What, are you saying that they set up the whole warning system, knowing that they wouldn't actually be using it? Please.

It was triggered early. Why? That certainly rendered any warning system null...

why>

When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre?

Really? You expect combat in civilian areas to be clean and neat and tidy? "Hey, before you go shooting me, could you please remove your women and children? Could we just do a quick sweep of the house to ensure all the women and children have been removed?" War is not like that. Modern warfare in urban areas is especially not like that. What do you expect to happen in combat? Really, genuine question.

Talk about DEFLECTION.

Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"? Really now? Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would. According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses. Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.

So you just excuse this as ...well...combat?

Come on Shusha - this is stretching.

...you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.

Um. No. There is no context when just giving the numbers. The numbers alone do not measure a "massacre". First the accepted numbers -- TOTAL -- are 100ish. Heavy on the "ish". Clearly, not all of them were civilians as there was some significant resistance to the attack. At least some of these were combatants. (I'm not sure anyone has the numbers on how many were combatants. But if you have them -- show me.)

Significant? No. Not significant.

According to the sources I have quoted most of the bodies were women, children and elderly. I can't believe you are excusing this as nothing more than warfare. Perhaps we should rethink the Palestinian attacks on civilians then.

IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".

Well, actually those words have been said on this very board. Since I've been a member.

But "stuff it and get over it" is NOT what I said. There is a difference between pogroms/persecution and conflict.

Well then - do you agree with those sentiments?
Sometimes - conflict is pogroms/persecution disguised.

Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.

I would agree with you if they just "walked" into houses and shot people. But they were being shot at as well. Hence, the "conflict" part.

[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have that those women and children were shooting at them?

 

[Boston1]

There does not appear to have been a massacre.

There appears to have been a propaganda campaign on both sides.

Its an effort to incite

as such I suggest we Best Forget

 

[Coyote]

Ya. Their only Palestinians. Who the hell cares?

 

[Shusha]

Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"? Really now? Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would. According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses. Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.

So you just excuse this as ...well...combat?

Really? The picture you are dealing out is that the Irgun and Lehi were just going from house to house shooting poor innocent children and women hovering in the corners with NO RESISTANCE. Give me a break. That's the NARRATIVE intending to portray the events as being something outside the winds of war/combat. Its an intentional portrayal of the events as the murder of innocents offering no resistance.

There was resistance. What the hell do you think that means?! They were being shot at. From within the houses. The response was mostly throwing grenades into the houses as they tried to clear them. Does it suck? Yeah. Big time. Is it equivalent to Odium's shooting children because they are Jews?! Not in the slightest. And its offensive in the extreme that you would equate the two.

 

[Coyote]

Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"? Really now? Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would. According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses. Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.

So you just excuse this as ...well...combat?

Really? The picture you are dealing out is that the Irgun and Lehi were just going from house to house shooting poor innocent children and women hovering in the corners with NO RESISTANCE. Give me a break. That's the NARRATIVE intending to portray the events as being something outside the winds of war/combat. Its an intentional portrayal of the events as the murder of innocents offering no resistance.

I'm wondering what narrative you are trying to portray here. Are yo usaying there is no possibility they might have just intended a massacre? Really? How were these children resisting? Do you suppose the Fogels were resisting when the Palestinians slit their children's throats?

There was resistance. What the hell do you think that means?! They were being shot at. From within the houses. The response was mostly throwing grenades into the houses as they tried to clear them. Does it suck? Yeah. Big time. Is it equivalent to Odium's shooting children because they are Jews?! Not in the slightest. And its offensive in the extreme that you would equate the two.

These people were not killed by grenades. They were shot and killed in cold blood. Someone went into the house and chose to kill them. The majority of the dead were women, children and elderly.

It's offensive that I would equate it? What I find offensive in the exteme is that you would justify the killing of children in cold blood simply because they were Palestinians.

What kind of person can point a gun at a child and kill it?

 

[Boston1]

I call bull shit on the whole herr yassin or whatever its called thing

How about if we remember the Munich massacre

Not much controversy there.

Israeli olympic team slaughtered by the animals that are Arab muslims in Israel.